Testing Putin in Syria

There has been no shortage of scrutiny of what Russian President Vladimir Putin is up to in Syria and why. Much of the analysis, though, has been narrowly focused on the short term and overly negative in assessing the likely consequences.

NEW YORK – There has been no shortage of scrutiny of what Russian President Vladimir Putin is up to in Syria and why. Much of the analysis, though, has been narrowly focused on the short term and may be too negative in assessing his actions’ likely long-term consequences.

What we know is that Putin has decided to come to the aid of Bashar al-Assad’s embattled regime. Russian bombs and missiles are now raining down on an array of armed groups that have been fighting Syrian government forces, which has given the regime the breathing space that Russia’s intervention was intended to provide.

As bad as the Assad government is, and as much as it has to answer for, this outcome is arguably preferable in the short run to the regime’s collapse. The painful truth in Syria today is that a government implosion would most likely lead to genocide, millions more displaced people, and the establishment of the Islamic State’s so-called caliphate in Damascus.

Mr Haas has the brilliant proposal to help and strengthen the Kurds, and to use them to enforce safe areas in Northern Iraq and Syria. Has it occurred to him that Turkey will certainly not agree to any such proposal, and indeed that Turkey is itself much more likely to attack the Kurds than to attack ISIL? Why do such writers come out with these ridiculous pipe dreams, when they must surely realise they are never going to happen?

"short-run" and "long-run" (9th line) are terms that seem very speculative to me, if describing a 4 year long struggle in which we have had over 10 countries involved since the beginning, and which outbreaks into Iraq which started in 2003. the truth is, if Russia manages to fix things up somehow we will come off as neocolonialists not neo liberals!

Many fear that Russia’s latest activism will not only prolong Syria’s brutal civil war, but also strengthen the Islamic State.
This makes the United States, dropping arms in Syria with aircraft is not clear where and to whom it is not clear! idiots!

Many fear that Russia’s latest activism will not only prolong Syria’s brutal civil war, but also strengthen the Islamic State

Author you out of your mind?
How the steps Russia may strengthen the "Islamic state" ?! I've personally always thought that the bombing is just the opposite result. It would be interesting to ask some surviving terrorist of strengthened if his "State" Russian air raids

The weakest point in Western media - is complete distorted reality. Russia has been always facing direct war conflict with Jihad radicals. That is an existential threat to Russia for the whole our history.
Western media concentrate ONLY on Putin is being a narcissistic Psycho. That is a total myth created by Western PR-sensation-egomania. This myth does not grant you any diplomatic position.

Time honoured template that always creates Salvation where Sectarianism is Religion.
Like Yugoslavia - create Sectarian enclaves, call them Nations, then enable their passage into "Anglosphere" where "Nationalists" migrate.
Like India's history - create Sectarian enclaves, call them Nations, then enable their passage into "Anglosphere" where "Nationalists" migrate.
Like Europe's history - create Sectarian enclaves, call them Nations, then enable their passage into "Anglosphere" where "Nationalists" migrate.
Of course, Sectarianism not necessarily due Religion only; Language Race Ethnicity all can give rise to Sectarianism.
So in Syria Iraq - create Sectarian enclaves, call them Nations, then enable their passage into "Anglosphere" where "Nationalists" migrate.
The only catch is that the European Union is an "Incomplete Anglosphere" - without One Language to facilitate the narrative for a melting pot.
Will the United States of Europe become Last Frontier for English in our lifetimes - The Final "Anglosphere" ???

Richard Haass, a much admired political strategists. His analysis of the Russian project is good, however, by suggesting Sunnis, Alawite and others sectarian solutions, it shows that his understanding of political Islam is rather limited which might be an end game but is certainly no solution.

Writing that "the cause of this conflict is the interventionist policy of external powers" is, in my view, the expression of a profound disrespect for the Syrian people. Whether they support Assad or want to be rid of him and his government, they aren't puppets incapable of thinking for themselves.

Intervention of all kinds has made a made a complex problem worse, and you can argue that it has been doing so since 1919 at least. But it has hardly been "the cause" of the Syrian civil war.

Yes indeed the West still does not understand camel trader mentality and 1919 is a good reference. Failed US foreign policy has made matters worse in the Middle East. The only winner in Syria is the industrial military complex.

On the contrary, intervening in internal affair of another country is the demonstration of disrespect and distrust for the people who should change the regime, which may take time, through their own strength. More importantly, It depends on what we see as consequences (effects) of the cause. The cause of destruction of humanity has been going through ( culturally, historically, economically, human life and more no doubt) is the effect of war-condition, which was created by external powers to change the regime. The humanity hasn't experienced suffering of refuges, killing of people and destruction of infrastructures and homes in this degree after Second World War. Thinking only from pragmatic or technical point of view is enough to understand that it is the power of weapons supplied to civic (not legitimate) organisation to fight against a established army. Consequently; The worst political deal with Assad would have been the best deal to prevent this unimaginable destruction. Countries created situation through direct and physical intervention in Iraq, to export democracy in one night, knew that Syria was cultural and politically not much different.

We ca not find any solution if are not able to distinguish the cause of an incident from its outcome (s). Thinking from technical point of view is enough to understand that economic, social, cultural, historical, mental and physical destruction of Syria happened because of creating war-conditions. Simply if USA, EU, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabian hadn't set up an illegitimate civic army (FSA) to fight against established legitimate state with all types of weapons. It was completely wrong to supply a group of people all types of weapons to be able to fight against a state possessing every weapons . So the degree of destruction that the humanity has experienced would have been prevented if they hadn't created an civic army.
From the political point of view the opposition justified its intervention; Assad is killing demonstrators, there is no democracy and human rights. Having accepted that Syria was not a democratic country, have Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabian got democracy? Are demonstrators not being killed in those countries? further more every day 90 people are killed by gunshot in the USA and black people are treated as second class citizen. Is it a democracy? Nonetheless there is no doubt that if the external powers had been patient enough to put more continues political pressure on Assad, I am sure a solution would have been achieved to prevent this destruction. Assad was slow to introduce some reforms. America and Israel were interested in weak and politically fragile Syria. In addition, the removal of Assad would undermined the influence of Russia. Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabian were interested in establishing a SUUNI dominated government without being interested in democracy. Conclusion;. The cause of this conflict is the interventionist policy of external powers. We is needed is to end the proxy war. It may happen through help of Russia and other forces. We have to accept that there will be no solution before ending the war of jihadist. Then I believe Assad will sit for a political solution with a moderate opposition for a political solution, because Assad also knows that he can not continue like that. Above all, the worst political deal with Assad would have been the best solution, which would have prevented this destruction

As an American, I don't see this as a game of chess, but as a game of poker.

Putin has just raised the stakes. This requires that all the other players ( Iran, ISIS, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Assad, Turkey and the US), check their hands and decide whether to fold or to follow Putin's lead and commit still more men and equipment.

The logic of the situation dictates that no one can afford to back out now. Therefore, the game will continue until the one or more players has exhausted itself and can put no more resources into the pot.

The lone exception seems to be Obama. But as we have just seen in his decision to leave more troops in Afghanistan, even he is subject to political pressures to avoid the charge of "losing" and "wasting" all the blood and treasure that have already been spent in the Middle East.

Russian Intentions. Helping or hindering the war in Syria.
Question. How to understand Russia's relationship with Iran and by extension, Hezbollah. Help them inasmuch as they help advance the West and Israel's national interests but subtly filabuster where appropriate. Also How much is Russia actually attacking ISIS compared to the Nusra Front and other equally noxious future enemies of Israel.
Is is possible to make quiet overtures to Assad with agreement to continue to keep Israeli/Syrian frontier quiet? Is is possible to deal with Hezbollah differently? Only Assad has provided substantial assistance and protection of the embattled Christian community in the country something Obama has been unable or strangely unwilling to do. It is well known there is a significant religious element to this fight also Russian must be keen not to disclose this for want of offending their Persian/and other Shiite minority allies.

If President Putin indeed plays chess, then one must analyze not only the current maneuver within Syria but also his opening moves in Crimea and subsequently Ukraine. Whether he has been improvising as he goes along his political match against the West, is a matter of speculation but so far he seems to have his opponents on the defensive. However, all chess masters analyze the board and plan, like Mr. Haas points out, three to four moves ahead. Following this logic, Putin's strategy at this stage perhaps is no longer in Assad's kingdom but farther ahead. Maybe in projecting his country naval ambitions in the Mediterranean; in showcasing his weaponry for the purpose of selling his hardware to other nations; in playing to be an essential part in a future Israeli-Palestinean settlement; in destabilizing the Sunni axis in favor of bolstering Iran and the Shias in the region and so on. So far it seems that he is winning the tournament!

The comparison with Stalin is ludicrous: Stalin was the real Big Other, Stalin commanded authority, Stalin was charming, and Stalin murdered millions. Putin is awkward, and without charm: Putin is but the Monty Python sketch of Stalin, and he has the silly gait to go with the role.
What Putin and other self-deluding Russians crave for is a Russia with the soft power of the US, the manufacturing prowess of Germany, and the future-in-waiting of China: but what Russia actually has is a depopulation implosion (for the moment not as acute as Assad's own depopulation implosion, but the conditions for an irreversible brain drain are there), a manufacturing sector that is late to robotization, and as much soft power as a convicted paedophile.
Russia is like an overstretched and old rubber-band; but no one in their right mind should wish for the rubber-band to break.
Please stop the pathetic articles about Putin: the guy has no game-plan, is not a chess master, and is making up the rules as he goes along.
If the West really wanted Assad dead, a hit squad could have done the job long ago. It would make more sense, and be more moral, if the West would surgically assassinate dictatorial heads of State, instead of waging proxy wars that only bring more suffering to peoples already suffering. Where are the international lawyers who should be making the case for assassination of heads of State as a policy tool?

While the world is watching closely what Vladimir Putin is up to in Syria, Richard N. Haass seems to be full of admiration for the Russian president, admitting the latter is the strongest leader "since the Stalin era." Haass claims, Putin - as a "martial-arts enthusiast" - knows his moves, which are "entirely consistent with many of the discipline's principles". It's about the "importance of the decisive thrust that neutralizes the opponent's strengths and exploits his weakness."
We have been rebuked for being too critical of Putin and viewed his actions in a short term perspective while overseeing their - positive - long-term consequences. Haass endorses Russia's effort to prop up Assad’s "embattled regime" and prevent it from collapsing. "As bad as" it is compared to the Islamic State, he still sees it as the lesser of two evils, fearing "genocide, millions more displaced people" etc. should ISIS seize power.
Haass says Putin has been able to "distract domestic attention" from economic woes and the war in Ukraine, while remaining popular for his military adventure in Syria, under the pretext of supporting Russia's "long-term" and only ally in the region. According to Haass it is "unlikely" that Putin's "assertiveness" would trigger "a new wave of such interventions, even a new Cold War", simply because Russia lacks "the economic and military means to sustain such efforts on multiple fronts." Besides the mood may change if Russians see they have "to pay a high price" for it.
Even if Russia's airpower succeeds in helping the regime recapture lost territories, it will merely "establish a relatively secure enclave," without weakening ISIS, which has taken over "areas that others have abandoned." In the face of Russia's involvement Haass praises Putin's ability of "planning several moves ahead", and he doesn't rule out a diplomatic solution that would remove Assad from power. This would enable Putin "to demonstrate Russia’s central role in shaping the future of the Middle East" and it would also "confer prestige" on him.
Haass advises the US and its allies to "pursue a two-track policy", that would "improve the balance of power on the ground", while helping the Kurds and Sunni tribes fight ISIS "from the air." His idea of "enclaves or cantons" is indeed the "best possible outcome for now and the foreseeable future", with the breakup of Syria as an inevitable outcome. It's not true that "neither the US nor anyone else has a vital national interest in restoring a Syrian government that controls all of the country’s territory". John Kerry says that both the US and Russia want to restore a "united and secular" Syria, with "Iranian participation." Even if they finally "ease Assad out of power" it is most unlikely that the "successor government" would enjoy "the support of his Alawite base and, ideally, some Sunnis."

In addition to defending its access to the Mediterranean, Putin also seems to be staking out a pro-Shia strategy as he simultaneously sends anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. Given the western bias towards Sunni regimes, this makes some sense. It also shines a light on one of the potential consequences of the Iran nuke deal, i.e. an improvement in relations between the US and Iran. That would not be in Russia's interest. Under this analysis the US and its allies must decide between focusing its efforts on eliminating ISIS which plays into Putin's strategy of stitching together a Shia belt aligned with Russia from Iran to the Mediterranean, or undermining Assad, and indirectly Russia, which allows ISIS to fester and grow. We know how to deal diplomatically with Russian and secular Arab dictators. That's not an option with ISIS so the choice seems pretty clear to me.

Unfortunately, Assad and the Islamic State are the only two credible candidates for power in Syria. If you try to fight both, you just neutralize yourself. So, the choice is really between following Russia's lead, and supporting Assad, or not. And that comes down to judgments whether Assad can win, even with Russia's support, and whether outside nations can force him out, if he does win. If you aren't sure that Russia can do both -- beat IS and force Assad out -- then why do you want to take a part of that action. Let Russia show what it can do first; then we can make our choices.

There is a lot of b.s. in this insider view of Putin's intervention.
Essentially Putin is demonstrating the decline and fall of American influence and power in the region including Iraq.
If he succeeds in preserving Assad's regime with help from Iran, he'd have dented American strategic interest and placated his allies in ME including Egypt.
What Hass & his like's in the beltway don't like to ask is why US Pentagon has decided to pull out of Syria...

I think most Americans are happy to let Russia play the global police. We have all the oil we need in the US, there is no need for middle east any more. It is just full of a bunch of angry, fighting people.

First, we need to think of priorities. For all the talk about the danger of terrorism, it has been minimal beyond belief for a dozen years. Britain and Spain have kept theirs in perspective. What is a relatively few deaths and incidents.

The danger today is in Europe. We have had a disastrous foreign policy in deliberately destabilizing Libya and Syria. We should have treated the Arab spring in Syriia as in Egypt and Jordan. Instead of supporting secular regimes, we used fundamentalist Afghanistan to create ISIS!!! The result is a flood of refugees of Europe that may set back European integration for years, if not decades.

Refugees to the US will encourage the feelings on which Trump feeds about Hispanic refugees. In comparison, Assad is absolutely nothing, as trivial as the unfortunate events in Nepal..

Second, our talk about Putin as a military threat to Europe is utter, utter nonsense. Generals who talk that way should be removed.

Russia and Iran have other fish to fry. The instability in northern Afghanistan involves the fate of Farshi-speaking Tajiks, a group of central interest to iran and Russia. The two are natural military allies there. That is where they need joint intelligence most of all. That is where they will need no-fly zones. Syria is a training ground for Russian officers and units that have had no experience for several decades.

The notion that they would want a crisis in Europe to go with this is bizarre.

We have not had a well thought out geopolitical plan for a quarter of a century. We have been children playing games since the end of the Cold War.

The visible Republicans are reducto ad absurdium. An intelligent candidate needs to talk about Europe and the complication of refugees for us solving our difficult immigration policies. He needs to say that Benghazi is just a symbol of the craziness of Hillary's hawkish foreign policy and her terrible policy in Libya.

At least in the Cold War, we and the Russians managed our relationship safely. The US worried about maintaining--indeed, creating--a stable Europe in response. Now we are back to the last chapter of Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative that even Goldwater did not believe--break off relations with Russia, break off all exchanges, a holy ideological war, and military intervention in case of another Soviet intervention as in Hungary.

The time has indeed come to go back to the Cold War of thinking about our real interests and thinking in geopolitical terms.

A political solution in Syria may be too late now. No one wants to admit it, but Syria is in the midst of a sectarian civil war, of which all these parties are playing their own roles. ISIS is embedded amongst the population of the Middle East and some other countries and it may prove very hard to dismantle them in the short term. This “Grand Plan” of wiping out the minorities (including the alawites) and the remaining of many ancient civilisations was designed long time ago and have been in the making for quite some time (1958 to be more exact). Russia and Iran have poured in their military recently into Syria not only to protect the Russian apparatus and the Syrian regime but the alawite communities living along the Syrian coast and by this as you quite rightly said it, avoid a genocide. I read a statement yesterday made by a leading ME politician, apparently, the Syrian refugees in Lebanon gave birth to over 180,000 in Lebanon since the beginning of the crisis, considering that the population of Lebanon is roughly 3.5 million, one can make the math. Dividing Syria and Iraq is out of the question (they consist of tribal communities with links to other ME countries), too much is at stake now in the Middle East and everyone is very worried about serious spill overs which have started with WMDs’ in 2013 and the refugees’ crises.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.